On the President, Peaceful Protests, and Professional Athletes

So, just to clarify: waving a traitorous Confederate flag and chanting anti-Jewish slogans during an alt-right white supremacy march is constitutionally-protected free speech and makes some of those participating in the march “very fine people,” but African-Americans silently and peacefully kneeling during the National Anthem in protest of white supremacy and police brutality against people of color makes them “sons of bitches” who should be “fired” from their jobs.

This is the stated logic of the present President of the United States, Donald Trump.

You can’t call for peaceful protests and then call the peaceful protesters “sons of bitches” that “ought to be fired.” Because black athletes (and white athletes, and Latino athletes, and Asian athletes, etc.) always respond well when you call their mothers “bitches.” Right Mr. President?


On Friday, Sept. 22, 2017, at a campaign rally in Huntsville, Alabama, in response to African-American athletes taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans, President Trump said, "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's fired. He's fired!'"

On Friday, Sept. 22, 2017, at a campaign rally in Huntsville, Alabama, in response to African-American athletes taking a knee during the National Anthem to protest police brutality against African-Americans, President Trump said, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now! Out! He’s fired. He’s fired!'”


Review of “The Lost Gospel” by Jacobovici and Wilson

Except it’s NOT lost, and it’s NOT a gospel.

Since I’ve already been bombarded with questions from students and readers about the latest claims made by Simcha Jacobovici and Dr. Barrie Wilson in their new book, The Lost Gospel, I thought I’d post a quick response to this latest round of absurdity by repeating and re-posting some of the comments I made over a year ago in a post announcing my spring 2014 University of Iowa course in Syriac – a post that dealt (almost prophetically) with many of the claims made in this new book.

You can read most of Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson’s book online (and search for the parts that interest you) at Google Books here.

Mr. Jacobovici’s new book essentially claims that the 6th century CE Syriac language version of a Greek pseudepigraphical story entitled  Joseph and Aseneth (which I discuss in my class “Banned from the Bible: Intro to Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha” course at Iowa) is a “gospel”, and should be read allegorically, but only after replacing every mention of Joseph with the name “Jesus”, and every mention of Aseneth with “Mary Magdalene”.

Now, if your first thought is, “WTF? This is just as problematic as the Bible Code dude, who attempts to read every passage in the Bible as an allegory for every modern event, from the Invasion of Iraq, to the Wall Street Crash, to President Obama’s election, etc.”, then you’re right on the money. It is precisely that silly – same interpretative technique, same lack of evidence, same wishful speculation. The same guy who claims to have discovered the route of the Exodus, Atlantis, the nails of the cross, the tomb of Jesus (with Jesus still in it!), and another tomb of people celebrating Jesus’ resurrection (with Jesus still in the other tomb), has now written a book claiming “evidence” that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, by swapping out the names of Joseph and Aseneth and replacing them with the names of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

By that same allegorical logic, you could swap out the names of Samson and Delilah and claim that Mary Magdalene cut Jesus’ hair. Or swap out Adam and Eve and conclude that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were the primordial couple. Or read David and Bathsheba allegorically and end up with Jesus having a son named Solomon, who is guarded by the Priory of Sion, and…well, you get the picture.

There is a reason that the scholars of the world are not paying any attention to this latest so-called “discovery”: there’s nothing there.

First things first: Mr. Jacobovici’s The Lost Gospel is neither “lost” nor a “gospel”. Scholars have known about and have studied the Syriac version of Joseph and Aseneth, located in the British Museum, for a very long time. Written by an unknown West Syriac writer dating to the late 6th century CE, the author composed an Ecclesiastical History that included a translation of part of a lost Ecclesiastical History by the Greek writer Zacharias Rhetor. The work is commonly referred to as Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor. This Syriac text is of interest because books 1-2 of Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor contain a Syriac translation of the History of Joseph and Aseneth, which was often skipped in English translations because it is already known in the Greek. Keep in mind that the story of Joseph and Aseneth has been well documented over the years, both by my adviser at Pepperdine, Dr. Randy Chesnutt, who wrote his dissertation on Joseph and Aseneth, and by my Duke colleague Dr. Mark Goodacre, who has edited an Aseneth Home Page now for years.

Second: We already know why the story of Joseph and Aseneth was written. The story of Joseph and Aseneth is a well-known, ancient apocryphal expansion of the biblical account of the patriarch Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, the daughter of the Egyptian Priest of On (Heliopolis). The story of Joseph and Aseneth was composed to solve the later theological problem of Joseph, a Hebrew patriarch, marrying a non-Israelite woman (Aseneth), in direct violation of biblical commands (albeit later commands) that prohibit Hebrews/Jews/Israelites from intermarrying with other peoples, for instance, those found in Deut. 7:3; Josh. 23:12; Ezra 9; and Neh. 13:25. As prohibiting intermarriage became a bigger and bigger deal in the Second Temple period, many Jews began to see the problem with Joseph’s marriage to Aseneth, as Joseph was said to have not only married an Egyptian, but the daughter of an Egyptian priest!

In Gen. 41:45, the Bible says that Pharaoh gave Joseph one of his daughters as a wife:

“Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him Aseneth daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, as his wife.”

Gen. 41:50-52 further says that Joseph’s wife Aseneth bore him two sons: Manasseh and Ephraim, whence we get the tribal names:

“Before the years of famine came, Joseph had two sons, whom Aseneth daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, bore to him. Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, ‘For,’ he said, ‘God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father’s house.’ The second he named Ephraim, ‘For God has made me fruitful in the land of my misfortunes.'”

As one might imagine, this became a problem for Jews in the Second Temple period. Perhaps many asked, “How can God prohibit us from marrying women of another race when our patriarch Joseph did so?”

Enter Joseph and Aseneth, which was composed like so many pseudepigraphical stories of the Second Temple period and early Christian centuries to “explain away” the problem. We find these same apologetic techniques used in early Rabbinic writings as well as the Aramaic Targums, which clean up the stories of the Jewish Patriarchs by explaining away anything that might be perceived as a misdeed.

The popular ancient love story of Joseph and Aseneth serves an apology explaining why a righteous Israelite patriarch like Joseph would marry the daughter of a pagan priest. And the solution is a simple one: Joseph and Aseneth explains that Joseph’s wife, Aseneth, first converted to monotheism and belief in the Hebrew God before she married Joseph (a detail the Bible obviously “left out”). See? All better.

And that’s basically it. The biblical account says Joseph married an Egyptian woman, so Joseph and Aseneth explains that Aseneth first converted, and therefore was eligible to be married to Joseph.

Third: The Syriac account of Joseph and Aseneth in Pseudo-Zacharias Rhetor does not talk about Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and simply substituting names does not make it so. However, the Syriac account is still noteworthy because just prior to his retelling of the story, the author writes a letter to a certain Moses of Ingila, asking for a translation and whether there is a deeper allegorical (θεωρία) interpretation of the story beyond the literal narrative. Some have argued that Moses of Ingila’s response attempts to interpret the story of Joseph and Aseneth allegorically, as a gnostic union of the soul (represented by Aseneth) with the divine Logos/Word of God (represented by Joseph). Likewise, there have been many who have argued (largely unsuccessfully) that the text is an allegory, with Joseph symbolizing anything from Jesus to the nation of Israel.

For her part, some scholars have understood Aseneth’s description as the “Bride of God” in 4:2 as representative of a redeemed Israel, or of the matriarchs of the Bible, or perhaps even the practice of voluntary virginity, which was increasingly popular in Christian circles in the late first and early second centuries. The simplest answer is that one who is now a “bride of God” is one who is a “daughter of God”, i.e., “a Hebrew” (and no longer an Egyptian, at least for religious purposes), in much the same way that a “son of God” represents any “child of God” in the Hebrew text. Keep in mind that there are many “sons of God” mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament that appear to be referring to heavenly beings, from Job 1:6: וַיְהִי הַיּוֹם וַיָּבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים לְהִתְיַצֵּב עַל-יְהוָה (“Now it fell upon a day, that the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD”), to Job 38:7: וַיָּרִיעוּ כָּל-בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים (“and all the sons of God shouted”), to Gen 6:2: וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה (“and the sons of God saw the daughters of men, because they were fair”), as well as in the New Testament, when human peacemakers come to be called “sons of God”: μακάριοι οἱ εἰρηνοποιοί ὅτι αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται (“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God“).

The use of the phrase “son(s) of God” in the Old and New Testaments does not automatically mean “INSERT JESUS’ NAME HERE”.

Fourth: Simply employing symbolism does not an allegory make. So while some scholars have argued that the text is a distinctly Christian text, most scholars conclude that the text is distinctly Jewish, while allowing that the text may possess some evidence of later Christian tampering and reworking, especially those parts of the text involving Eucharistic interpretations of the meal of bread and wine found within the story. However, the attempts by multiple scholars (cf. Chap 1 of Chesnutt) to interpret the story allegorically ultimately fall short, as any allegorical interpretation must be highly selective of particular details, and therefore necessarily ignores many other details within the story that simply do not fit the supposed allegory, relegating claims of allegory to the realm of wishful thinking. The story must ultimately be read as what it is: a Jewish narrative apology for the patriarch Joseph’s mixed marriage, with possible, occasional Christian reworking.

Keep in mind that there are all kinds of allegorical interpretations of biblical texts in the first centuries BCE and CE. Chapter 15 of the pseudepigraphical Epistle of Barnabas offers an allegorical interpretation of the Creation account from Gen. 1. The first century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria also offered allegorical interpretations of biblical events and figures (including Joseph). The difference here is that Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson are claiming an allegorical interpretation of a pseudepigraphical text, as if the text of Joseph and Aseneth were itself canonical.

When all is said and done, Mr. Jacobovici and Dr. Wilson offer an allegorical interpretation of a Syriac translation of a (likely originally Greek) pseudepigraphical text, written to “clean up” the fact that the Hebrew patriarch Joseph married a non-Hebrew.

Fifth: The text used as “proof” of Jesus’ marriage dates to the 6th century CE, and only hopeful speculation pushes the Syriac version of this text back to earlier centuries. The fact that the Syriac version is composed long after an established minority tradition that depicts Jesus as Mary Magdalene’s κοινωνός, or “companion” in the Gospel of Philip, or the Gospel of Mary, which states that Jesus “loved [Mary] more than the rest of woman” – a tradition that some modern interpreters and fiction writers have argued is evidence that the Mary mentioned is Mary Magdalene, and that the two were married – does not provide “evidence” that Jesus and Mary were married. It simply means that some later author was making a contribution to this tradition. BUT, because it is written after the others, it CANNOT be used as “evidence” of ANYTHING but a continuation of the already late tradition that Jesus was married.

It would be like citing a favorable book review written by followers of Simcha Jacobovici three centuries after the publication of The Lost Gospel, and citing it as evidence that Simcha knows what he’s talking about. Such a review would contribute nothing to Simcha’s credibility, but would only serve as evidence that someone much later liked the book. Similarly, the Syriac version is a translation of a pseudepigraphical apology, upon which is forced Mr. Jacobovici’s allegorical translation. This is evidence of nothing.

Sixth: (And please remember I originally wrote the following over a year ago.) Anyone attempting an allegorical interpretation of Joseph and Aseneth, and arguing for anything other than an apology for why Joseph married a non-Israelite (and the daughter of a pagan priest at that), is grasping at speculative straws, and attempting (like the author of the Syriac text) to stretch the text into something it was never designed to do. Whether it be a gnostic interpretation of the text, or an attempt to argue something truly ridiculous and sensational, for example, that the story somehow represents Jesus and Mary Magdalene (as “Bride of God”, requiring an appeal to separate Gnostic texts like Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, and the Gospel of Philip), and that this allegorical representation from six centuries after the life of Jesus, relying on the weaving together of multiple Gnostic texts composed a full century after the life of Jesus, somehow provides “evidence” of aspects of Jesus’ actual, historical lifesuch allegorical interpretations are the height of unsubstantiated speculation.

My teacher, Randall Chesnutt, said it best in his conclusion:

“While no one doubts the presence of symbolic and allegorical elements, the trend now is toward a method which recognizes those elements of symbolism and allegory which are straightforward and explicit in the narrative of Aseneth’s conversion rather than those supposed to be encoded deep within it.” (Chesnutt, From Death to Life, p. 45).

Finally: The book’s methodology is highly problematic. Scholars won’t reject Mr. Jacobovici’s findings because of some “theological trauma” or a confessional, apologetic desire to preserve the Jesus described in the Bible. I’m an agnostic. I have no dog in the fight of whether Jesus was married or not. He could be married and have 4 kids like me and I wouldn’t care. The problem is not a theological one, it is one of scholarship, methodology, and the (mis)use of evidence. Scholars won’t reject Mr. Jacobovici’s claims because they want to defend Christianity, scholars will reject Mr. Jacobovici’s speculations because he engages in circular reasoning, lacks evidence, breaks any number of rules of textual criticism, and engages in what I’ve described in the past as “speculation wrapped in hearsay couched in conspiracy masquerading as science ensconced in sensationalism slathered with misinformation” – all of which is designed to sell books and get viewers to watch the accompanying documentary in the weeks leading up to Christmas.

So in my professional opinion as an archaeologist and a tenure-track professor at a major research university (GO HAWKS!), I must recommend against this book. Just don’t bother. Were it a Dan Brown-esque novel, positing a speculative interpretation about the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene utilizing a fanciful allegorical interpretation of a document written six centuries after Jesus came and went, I’d say buy it and have fun. Fiction can be so much fun! But the problem with this book is that Mr. Jacobovici believes what he’s writing. He believes his interpretation is true. He wants it to be true. And that hovers somewhere between comical and scary.

I HAVE read the book and it really is worse than you might imagine. The text in question is neither “lost” nor a “gospel”, and the allegorical reading of the Syriac version of Joseph and Aseneth is little more than a wishful hope that it would be so, employing little more than name substitution and a desire to prove The DaVinci Code true. Absolutely no scholar will take this book seriously. It will not change Christianity. It will not change biblical scholarship. It’s just Simcha doing what he does best: direct-to-the-public pseudoscholarship just in time for Christmas.

No, Barack Obama is Not the Antichrist: Debunking A YouTube Video

The following video has been sent to me four times in the last few weeks by different individuals asking for my thoughts on the matter. And while nonsense of this caliber doesn’t dignify a response, it is important to remember that it is nonsense like this that is often designed to confuse people who don’t know Hebrew and therefore don’t know any better. So despite the fact that the video is nonsense, here is my take down of this video and it’s ridiculous claims.

This is nothing but proof-texting poorly done. Here are the problems with the argument:

1) Whoever wrote this is bending over backward to try to claim that a Greek NT text was actually originally “spoken” in Aramaic. (Again, you can argue that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, but the text of the NT was written in Greek, especially Luke, which no one (of significance) argues existed in Hebrew prior to its Greek text.) But then the author of the video concludes by saying “as spoken by a Jewish rabbi today”, falsely (and ridiculously) assuming that a Jewish rabbi today would read text originally spoken in Aramaic and written in NT Greek in modern Hebrew. This is the epitome of absurdity and can’t even qualify as circular reasoning.

The author of the video is attempting to use the definitions of certain Hebrew words to define (incorrectly) other Greek words, and that it is the sounds made by these incorrect definitions of Hebrew words (and not their meanings – go figure!), that give use the name of the Antichrist (which the video desperately wants to be Barack Obama).

2) Remember also that when NT writers are quoting the OT, more often than not they are quoting the LXX (the Septuagint, or the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible), so these Hebrew words likely never entered into the equation. Additionally, the LXX provides excellent Greek translations of Hebrew words (as you’ll see shortly). So the author of the video is trying desperately to claim that any word he can find in any language that is remotely similar to the words in Luke 10:18 are eligible for substitution, and that it’s not the meaning of these words, but the sounds they make that matter. Of course, this is patently absurd and certainly not how language translation works, but that’s not going to stop this nutjob from trying.

3) The words that the author of this video is claiming are being used are simply wrong. He’s trying to argue that the word for lightning, ברק, or BRQ is the president’s name, when actually the President’s name is Barack, or ברך, or BRK, or “blessed”. (The president’s name is actually more likely derived from the Arabic word from the same Semitic root, which has the same meaning: “blessed”.) The author of this video confuses the qoph (Q) with the kaph (K) – a common mistake made by those who don’t know Hebrew. Thus, he’s looking at the wrong word in the concordance. But, since it “sounds” the same, he either figures he’ll be able to fool some folks, or simply doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.

4) The author of the video is also using the wrong word for “heavens”. Hebrew has a very well known word for “heavens”. It is שמים, or “SHAMAYIM”. However, the author of this video is attempting to argue that the word במה or “BAMAH” is being used here. The problem here is that the word “BAMAH” is a religious high place, not unlike the altar area in a cathedral. A “BAMAH” is mentioned in the Bible, but elsewhere (not here), as the places on which gods are worshiped. We find them, for instance, at Megiddo and Tel Dan. But they have nothing to do with the heavens. So the author of the video tries to make a diversion into the book of Isaiah 14:14, and claim that the poetic phrase במותי–עב, or “BAMOTEY AV”, which is used poetically here for “heights of the clouds” is another way to say the “heavens”, and invokes this verse because of an ancient theological claim made by some early Christians, who understand Isa. 14:4-21 to be referring to some “Lucifer” (a name that doesn’t appear until in the Latin Vulgate) and comes to be equated with Satan in later centuries, even though Isa. 14:4 clearly sets the content of the prophecy as a “taunt against the king of Babylon”, and not a prophecy about “Satan” (who is never even mentioned in the text). But because of this later Christian tradition that associates Isaiah 14 with Satan, the author of the video argues that the word “BAMAH” here can be substituted for the word for “heavens”. The problem is, of course, that although the root here is “BAMAH”, the word used here to refer to the “heights” is plural, not singular. The plural of במה in Hebrew is במות or “BAMOT”. So if the text were saying “heavens”—even though this is the completely wrong word for “heavens” in Luke 10:18—the word would be the plural “BAMOT” just as it appears in Isa. 14:14, and then it would appear in the genitive construct form (BAMOTEY-), and not simply “BAMAH”. But, because “BAMOT” or “BAMOTEY” do not sound like the President’s name, the author of this video deliberately ignores this.

(It’s rough when pesky facts get in the way, no?)

Again, it is important to point out that the word used in Luke 10:18 is not the phrase used in Isa 14:14 for “heavens”. The author of the video is attempting to do an end-around and substitute a phrase from a different text in place of the word in Luke 10:18 because the word in Luke 10:18 doesn’t fit his narrative. The word used in Luke 10:18 and translated as “heavens” is “οὐρανοῦ” or “OURANOU”, which is the genitive of “OURANOS”. It sounds similar to the planet named Uranus. οὐρανος is the typical Greek translation of the word שמים, or “SHAMAYIM”, the Hebrew word for “heavens”, found, for instance, in Gen. 1:1, when God created the “οὐρανὸν” (heavens) and the earth. The Hebrew word being translated here is שמים, or “SHAMAYIM”, or “heavens”. Thus, you’ll note that when ancient authors wanted to translate the word for “heavens” into Greek, the Hebrew word standing behind the word for “heavens” in Luke 10:18 is “SHAMAYIM”, not “BAMAH”.

It is also worth noting that the LXX translates the verse in Isa. 14:14 as

ἀναβήσομαι ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν, ἔσομαι ὅμοιος τῷ ὑψίστῳ.

that is, “I will go up above/on the clouds (νεφελῶν, or NEPHELON, and NOT “οὐρανὸν” or “heavens”!!); I will be like the Most High”.

So, we see that because the text of Luke 10:18 does not say what the author of the video wants it to say, he attempts a detour through Isaiah 14:14, but then is not honest about the plural form of the genitive construct, and thus changes the word into the root he wants to use (the one that sounds more like “bamah”), even though the text of Luke 10:18 says no such thing. It is sheer deception and an ignorance of Hebrew (and scholarship for that matter).

5) There is also a problem with the grammar of the phrase that the author of the video is attempting to interpret as “lightning from the heavens”. The Hebrew letter ו, or “WAW” is used as the word for “AND” at the beginning of a word. But at the 2:55 point, the author of this video is attempting to use “WAW” as the word “FROM THE” in this construction. The problem is that this is not how one creates a construct or possessive in Hebrew. The way to do this in Hebrew is by using the construct form, which usually entails the use of a “YOD” and a maqqaf (hyphen) in between the words to be joined (cf. see the phrase במותי–עב in Isa. 14:14. See the -י in the middle?), or employing the word מן, or “MIN-” meaning “from”, followed by the word. But the author claims that adding the letter “WAW” can produce the same result. Of course, it can’t, but the author of the video needs it so that he can produce the sound “O-bamah”. So despite the fact that Isa. 14:14 clearly employs the construct state (-י) to form the poetic phrase “heights of the clouds”, the author claims that since you could use a “WAW” (which you can’t), that it’s all the same thing and so poof – “Obama”. Thus, the author of this video is again betraying his ignorance of Hebrew by arguing that the genitive of possession is represented by the conjunction “WAW”, rather than following Hebrew convention and placing the words in a construct state or using the word “MIN”. Again, this is simply made up nonsense in the attempt to produce something that sounds like “Obama”.

One further mistake: the author of the video claims that the Hebrew letter “WAW” makes an “O” or “U” sound. “WAW” typically makes an English “V” or “W” sound when spoken. The only time a “WAW” makes a vowel sound is when it is used as a plene vowel – either as a holem producing an “O” sound, or as a shureq, producing a “U” or “OO” sound. When it appears at the beginning of a word, it can produce a “U” sound (which is what the author is attempting to claim), but it then means the conjunction “AND”, which would render “lightning and high place” (in the singular). So the author of the video simply claims that a “WAW” is there (when it’s not), and that you should pronounce it as an “O”, and only listen to its sound, but NOT read its meaning, because that would insert the word “AND”, and he can’t have that.

Sound absurd yet??

So in the end, we see that the author of this video incorrectly assumes that the Hebrew words are used instead of the Greek (originally, he claims), and then proceeds to use the WRONG words for BOTH the President’s name (Barack vs. Baraq) AND the word for “heavens”, and then uses the singular instead of the plural, IN ADDITION TO using the wrong word for “from”.  And even if he were to use the correct Hebrew words, a methodology that claims that one can back-translate Greek text into Hebrew words from different Old Testament passages in order to produce a combination of mere sounds (not words with meanings, but mere sounds) that when combined produce the sounds of a modern name is faulty methodology. This is not how translations (or languages, or exegesis, or theology, etc.) work. This is sheer nonsense.

This video is completely bogus, and is obviously the work of some fool ignorant of Hebrew, who simply wants to convince listeners that the Bible says that President Obama is the Antichrist. It’s completely fake – just as fake as when other fools attempted to argue that since Ronald Wilson Reagan had six letters in each of his names, that he represented the mark of the beast – 666.

These are the foolish ramblings of idiots who think that they can use the Bible to convince people that the sitting President is somehow evil.

On Facebook, Fox News, and Intersexuality

I swear, the people at FoxNews aren’t just idiots, they’re proudly ignorant idiots, mocking that which (and those whom) they do not (and refuse to) understand.

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson refers to "intersex...whatever that is".

Fox News personality Tucker Carlson refers to “intersex…whatever that is”.

Facebook recently added additional gender options to its traditionally dichotomous male/female profile preferences. The gender terms provided by Facebook have been known for some time by those studying gender and sexuality, and have been explained to the public by professionals on several occasions.

So you can imagine why it may come as no a surprise to many that numerous pundits at Fox News not only do not know what many of these terms mean, but openly mock them.

Listen to the audio on the movie here.

Let me Google that for you: intersexThese are news people. They are supposedly investigators. So why mock intersexual people (or individuals exhibiting an intersexual condition) by saying on air “whatever that is”, when you can just as easily Google it.

Again, Tucker Carlson saying the words “whatever that is” in reference to intersex individuals is either evidence of incompetence as an investigative journalist, or sheer mockery of intersexuals.

Fox News personality Todd Starnes mocks intersexual individuals.

Fox News personality Todd Starnes mocks intersexual individuals.

And when Todd Starnes, host of the radio program Fox News & Commentary and a regular guest on Fox & Friends, says on Facebook,

“In the beginning God made man and woman…but Facebook decided to improve on the original models.”

or the idiotic

“What if you identify as a pine cone or a chicken or a weed whacker? Facebook doesn’t offer those options.”

and concerning “gender-fluid” individuals, who fluctuate somewhere on the spectrum between male and female, Starnes joked,

“You might want to have a roll of paper towels handy — just in case.”

I shake my head. It’s not news. And it’s a poor attempt at comedy. It’s a feigned ignorance for the purposes of mocking very real persons.

Intersexuals are not hypothetical individuals, and they are far more prevalent than you might think. Depending on the definition, about 1-1.7% of all live births – one or two out of every hundred people you know – show some form of sexual ambiguity, with 1 in 10 of those requiring optional surgery to assign them to a traditional male or female sex category.

I’ve blogged on this issue before. The case of Caster Semenya is but one higher profile example of an intersexual individual being questioned in the public spotlight.

And intersexual individuals are not new. There are photographs documenting intersexual individuals dating almost as far back as photography itself. Hell, the Greeks wrote complete myths about intersexuals in an attempt to explain their (divine) origin.

But it is this continued, deliberate ignorance of the existence of intersexual individuals – and the complete apathy concerning learning about them – that explains why so may religious conservatives (including those at Fox News) make the ignorant arguments they do concerning same-sex marriage. To put it simply, the existence of intersexual individuals implodes all arguments they make both about their opposition to anything but heterosexual marriage, and their claims that individuals choose their sexuality and are not born or “created” that way.

To argue age-old gender related religious arguments like “men are the spiritual leaders” and “women cannot be elders in the church” and “marriage is only between one man and one woman” falsely assumes that all individuals are either male or female. This is simply not the case, whether the Bible acknowledges intersexual individuals or not. Remember, science is not the Bible’s strong suit, and there are many realities of the modern world that the Bible simply does not acknowledge (for instance, that disease is caused by germs and not possession by evil spirits).

Intersexual individuals (formerly called Hermaphrodites after the Greek god Hermaphroditos, the son of Hermes and Aphrodite, who, according to Ovid, fused with a nymph (Salmacis) resulting in his possessing the physical traits of both a man and a woman) are very real individuals who do not fall into the traditional male-female dichotomy. Additionally, intersexual organisms are very common in nature. For example, clownfish (of the subfamily Amphiprioninae) of “Finding Nemo” fame are sequential intersexuals, with all specimens being born initially male, but with the largest fish in the group transforming very naturally into a female for reproductive purposes. (Remember that next time you watch the Disney favorite!)

Again, if you are going to argue that God made people, then God made intersexual people the way they are. (Right? Because “God don’t make no mistakes.”) They certainly didn’t “choose” to be intersexual; they were born that way. And while many intersexual individuals are proud of who they are and of the way they are, many others struggle with acceptance in a society so obsessed with sexuality and sexual conformity (especially to conservative religious traditions).

So tell me, praytell, who can intersexual individuals marry? Can they serve in leadership roles in a church?

These are real questions about real people, and the idiots at Fox News are too ignorant to know what they are, too stupid to look it up, and to bigoted to do anything but laugh at them. There is no excusing it. It is sheer mockery. They mock what they do not (and refuse to) understand because it does not fit their religious right wing narrative.

It is not news; it’s public social mockery of that which is “different” or “outside” and “beyond” the conservative worldview resulting from the religious blinders imposed by the Conservative Evangelical Republican political machine.

Westboro Baptist Church Could Learn A Thing or Two from Ted Cruz

You know, because FUNERALS are the most tactful venues to stage a protest.

Take a lesson Westboro Baptist Church. You’ve got nothing on Ted Cruz.

Archaeologist David Ussishkin responds to the use of mechanical excavators…in 2006!

For Simcha Jacobovici, facts apparently mean nothing. He appears to be making this up as he goes... (Photo www.jpost.com)

For Simcha Jacobovici, facts apparently mean nothing. He appears to be making this up as he goes… (Photo http://www.jpost.com)

The recent exposure of paid employees of Simcha Jacobovici attempting to alter the Wikipedia article on “bulldozer archaeology” was as embarrassing for Simcha as it was shameful.

“John” (User: JohnEUnited) and “Nicole” (User: Naustin1980) were caught red-handed in their attempt to manufacture artificial controversy on Simcha’s behalf by creating single-purpose accounts to pepper the Wikipedia article with references to Robert Deutsch’s (previously) anonymous ad in the pages of Biblical Archaeology Review, and Simcha’s bandwagon cheerleading attempts to promote the manufactured controversy.

The publishing of material on Wikipedia for the purposes of self-promoting and/or attacking others is not permitted upon on Wikipedia.

The article has since been restored.

“John” and “Nicole” also attempted to credit Simcha with the neologism “bulldozer archaeology”. That’s right, these champions of “investigative journalism” claimed that bulldozer archaeology was “a term coined by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici”. I kid you not. John McGinley then graciously spammed an email to a number of archaeologists and scholars touting their weasel works on Wikipedia, claiming, “”Bulldozer Archaeology² [sic] is now a recognized term in Wikipedia…The Goren/Deutsch debate is now in Wikipedia.”


It only took about ten seconds to discover who was behind the changes to the Wikipedia page, AND any number of instances (for instance, this one by Ralph Harrington) of the use of the term “bulldozer archaeology” long before Simcha’s PR team claimed he “coined” the phrase.

Once again, investigative journalism at its finest!

But it was upon perusing this Harrington article that I stumbled upon a citation, which led me to yet another article, in which none other than Tel Aviv University Professor Emeritus of Archaeology Dr. David Ussishkin responded to questions about his use of a mechanical excavator.

You’ll recall that Simcha highlighted the fact that Prof. Ussishkin did not sign the Tel Aviv University statement addressing the use of mechanical excavators in the midst of the Simcha/Deutsch campaign of retaliation against Prof. Goren.

Simcha stated:

“More important than who signed the statement, is who did not sign it. Legendary Tel Aviv archaeologist David Ussishkin – excavator of Lachish and Megiddo – never used a Caterpillar and did not sign the statement. Also notable by their absence are Tel Aviv archaeologists Ran Barkai, Avi Gopher and Dr. Mario Martin.”

[Emphasis mine]

As we see, Simcha invoked the name of Dr. Ussishkin just before he cited a deceased archaeologist as having supported him, and then corrected/deleted it from his blog. But he should have also deleted the claim about Dr. Ussishkin.

That is because not only does the above Harrington article prove that Simcha did not coin the phrase “bulldozer archaeology”, but we also note that in footnote 21 of the same article, which references a blog post entitled, “Archaeologist David Ussishkin Responds to El Haj Accusations“,  Dr. Ussishkin states:

“5. I believe the use of a JCB to determine the line of the rock-cut Iron Age moat was justified. It was essential to establish the size of the Iron Age enclosure in order to understand properly the site. In most of the area to the south of the site where this work took place bulldozers had removed and disturbed the debris during development works which had taken place here prior to the beginning of the excavation project. In view of the nature of the debris here it would have been impossible to accomplish the work with the aid of students/volunteers. A JCB with a long arm working delicately under archaeological supervision was the right solution: it can do useful work without damaging ancient remains, and I believe that this was the case here. Some later wall remains were exposed and recorded but were mostly left unexcavated – they probably belong to Byzantine domestic remains in the Iron Age moat or along its inner side. They all remain buried for future excavations.”

With all best wishes,

David Ussishkin

[emphasis mine]

Now I ask you: how many times can Simcha Jacobovici shoot himself in the foot trying to attack professor Yuval Goren? How hard is it to check to see if David Ussishkin ever endorsed the use of a mechanical excavator?

And how long will he rely on his bumbling employees to spam out emails about Wikipedia pages they marked up without even doing a minimal amount of simple research before they go embarrassing Simcha by making claims about him that take ten seconds to debunk?

Today we not only learned that Simcha is not beyond having his employees credit with something he did not do (coin the phrase “bulldozer archaeology,”), but that Simcha was wrong about claiming that Prof. Ussishkin never used mechanical excavators; clearly, David Ussishkin feels that:

“A JCB with a long arm working delicately under archaeological supervision was the right solution.”

Investigative journalism at its finest. lol.

Once again, how can we ever trust ANYTHING Simcha says?

I shake my head.

Lest We Forget: Remembering the 9-11 Religious Aftermath Too

As we pause to remember those who died in the September 11 tragedy, let us also never forget the theologically perverse religious drivel that spewed forth from the mouths of two of the most ridiculous religious leaders to have ever lived in the days immediately following the tragedy.

May we never forget how religion was misused and abused to promote the conservative cause in the wake of tragedy.

Remember, according to Robertson and Falwell, God hates liberals, so he caused thousands of innocent people to be murdered as punishment.

And you should blame the feminists, the gays, the lesbians, the abortionists, the federal courts, the pagans, the secularists, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, because it’s their fault God killed innocent people.

Damnable, damnable idiots.

(HT: Christian Nightmares)

%d bloggers like this: